. >> tonight on "huckabee" -- >> the best description of this person, a good, normal kid, who didn't want to harm anybody. >> his friends can't believe it. others say his brother put him up to it. is he being portrayed as a victim already in judge napolitano weighs in. the older suspect traveled to russia last year. what the fbi could learn from that trip. an expert security panel breaks it down. plus a weak of terro a week of d disaster. >> just gotten word of not one, but two explosions, near the finish line of the boston marathon. >> massive explosion that shattered a small town in texas. >> the best ways to talk to your kids about tragedy and stop them

from living in fear. ♪ >> mike: good evening. welcome to "huckabee." we're live in e eldorado, texas. at this hour, the justice department is preparing charges for dzhokhar tsarnaev. meanwhile there's a lot of talk on the sunday morning shows about the investigation. let's take a look at some of the comments from this morning in this sunday night edition of our quotes of the week. boston mayor tom menino has wrapped up the entire boston bombing case into one sound bite in abc's "this week." >> all the information i have is they acted alone, these two individuals, the brothers. the older brother is dead now. we have a second one at beth israel hospital in very serious condition. we don't know if we'll ever be able to question the individual.

>> mike: don't know if that sounds familiar, but seems like after every major crime, whether it's the kennedy assassination, the assassination of martin luther king jr., we always are pretty quick to come out and say that it was the lone nut, in this case it's a couple of them. now the truth is we don't know if they were the only ones involved. not at this point. there were some news reports that said, oh, they were a part of a sleeper cell of some 12 terrorists, but that, too, is unconfirmed. at this stage of the investigation, nobody really can say definitivively whether these were the only two people involved or whether they were part of a larger conspiracy. we always want to rush to the conclusion and somehow make ourselves feel better by saying, "oh, this is a very isolated incident." the fact is, i don't know either, but one thing we can be certain of, that this is

probably not the only situation where a couple of people are sitting around, trying to figure out how to kill americans. that's the scary part. again, with all due respect to the mayor, who i believe has handled this just fine, it's really not maybe quite up to the moment for us to just say, oh, we have everybody that's involved. let's let the authorities continue the investigation. well, on the 2011 fbi investigation of the older suspect, intelligence committee chairman mike rogers had this to say today. >> it's important to understand why in fact the fbi interviewed him in the first place. so they had information from a foreign intelligence service that they were concerned about his possible radicalization. so they went from there, the fbi did their due diligence, and did a very thorough job about trying to run that to ground. and then ask for some more help from that intelligence service to get further clarification. unfortunately that intelligence

service stopped cooperating. so what happens is that case gets closed down. >> mike: one of my favorite people is congresswoman rogers. he does a great job on the intelligence committee. but the fact is with 7 billion people on planet earth and 310 million in the united states, i'm not going to be that quick to blame the fbi if they don't know what all of us are doing at any one particular time. do i want the fbi to be perfect? you bet i do. do i expect them to be? not unless i can expect it of myself. the fact is we've been very blessed to have the kind of co agencies, including the fbi, the cia, homeland security, and a host of agencies that has kept us from having the kind of horrific attack that we saw in boston, but until then had not seen anything of that magnitude since 9/11. well, senator lindsey graham has been outspoken on how the

younger suspect ought to be handled by authorities. here's senator graham. >> two things should happen. when the public safety exception expires, and it will here soon, this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant, and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence-gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist. >> mike: there's a part of me that really wants to agree with the senator. he's my friend, and i like him a lot, but if he's asking us to sort of suspend all of our understanding of the due process of law that has established us as a unique light among the darkness in this world, then i have to think through that very carefully. yes, i want to be able to question these guys. no, i don't want them to get all lawyered-up. but at the same time we're a country of laws. i do want our country to acknowledge terrorism when it's obvious terrorism. for example, i want us to say, fort hood, that was terrorism. little rock, the shooting of the

soldier outside the recruiting office, let's be honest, let's say that's terrorism. the question is, do we suspend the normal due processes of law, whether it's to these guys, or to you or to me, and to designate somebody as an enemy combatant? that's a tougher one. in fact, it's tough enough that probably the smart thing to do is to bring judge andrew napolitano on board. i know he's got his view of senator lindsey graham's comments. i welcome judge napolitano, senior judicial analyst for fox news. judge, do we designate this guy enemy combatant or treat him through the criminal justice system? >> well, first good evening, governor. it's a pleasure to be on your show. thanks for having me. senator graham is well known to many of us at fox. he's also a friend of mine. no one can question his motivation. but we'll start with a couple of basics. the first is that the constitution is the supreme law

of the land. how do we know that? it says it in the constitution. the second is everybody who works for the government -- you did this when you were the governor of a, i di arkansas, in i was a superior court of new jersey -- takes an oath. the proper procedure here is to prosecute the surviving of the two brothers in the federal district court, probably not in boston. i don't know how he can get a fair trial in boston, but in some federal district court somewhere that has jurisdiction over these crimes. remember, tim mcveigh, who was convicted of blowing up the federal building in oklahoma city was actually prosecuted in denver. i would think this defendant would have to be prosecuted somewhere else. but there's no basis here whatsoever to believe or to suggest that we should suspend the constitution.

the constitution doesn't have a provision for its suspension. in fact, when presidents have done this, when f.d.r. did it, when lincoln did it during the civil war, and the supreme court reviewed their suspension of the constitution, it always shot them down. it always said, the constitution exists for good times and bad, for monsters and for innocents, for the governed and for those doing the governing, and there's no provision to suspend it, period. >> mike: well, and i think that's the point at which so many of us again uncomfortably come, yeah, this guy is a monster, we all want him to pay the ultimate price for what he did in boston, but if the justice system does not work for the worst, for the most hideous among us, then there may come that day, judge, when it doesn't work for the best among us either. it is what separates us from the other nations of the world that often use their government as a source of revenge and vengeance rather than a source of justice. help us to understand the

difference between justice and vengeance. >> well, i mean, justice is giving a person their dessert, what they are due by virtue of what they did. justice in america, justice in the western world, cannot be meeted out by politicians, mobs in the street, or police in a backyard when someone is hiding in a boat. justice can only be meeted out in a courtroom with a jury of 12 people, with a neutral judge, neutral jurors, with the government presenting its case and defense challenging it. that's the system. look, we have that system here because the kings of england didn't always give justice to the colonists. and we fought a revolution and wrote a constitution to assure that the federal government here, and the states here, could not treat us without justice, could not punish us without a jury trial. to interrogate him and not

advise him of his right to remain silent, to take to guantanamo bay, to treat him as if he were a soldie soldier froa foreign government to kill americans is not just, and nowhere authorized under the law. the rule of law exists before the crime, and that the law be followed when you're prosecuting this person as it existed at the time of the crime. there's no provision for the president of the united states to take this guy, as horrendous as we believe he is, as profound the evidence of his guilt, away from the criminal justice system and ship him to guantanamo bay. i'll make senator graham's argument for him. if this guy is really a soldier from a foreign country who put civilian clothing on, who was financed and trained and paid for and sent here by a foreign government that wants to destroy the united states of america, then he can be treated as a soldier of a foreign country, then you can be treated as an

enemy combatant. but governor, there's not an iota of evidence to support that. in fact the evidence the fbi has said is to the contrary. mayor menino, governor patrick, the head of the fbi in boston, have all said these guys were not sent by a foreign government. >> mike: i think you make a great point, too, about the just dessert that people get. timothy mcveigh, a sense of justice having been accomplished. judge, please stay with us. >> you bet. >> mike: did the bombing suspect's older brother lure him to participate in this week's attacks? could that hurt our chances for his conviction. we'll be back with the judge i

>> mike: dzhokhar tsarnaev has been portrayed as a nice guy, somebody that wouldn't hurt a fly, even a follower of his demanding older brother. is he being portrayed as a victim before he even gets to trial. we're back with judge andrew napolitano. judge, you expect the defense will say, it wasn't his fault, he was just a kid, his brother duped him into it. is that going to be effective given the heinous nature of the crime? >> i do expect the defense would say -- it's called a defense of diminished capacity, yeah, he did this, but wasn't of clear mind when he did it, led along by somebody else, somebody else was actually controlling his will, not in a zombie-like way, but because of his relationship to his brother. will it work? depends on the jury. if it does work, it would save him from execution. he could still be convicted of some lesser offense than use of a weapon of mass destruction to kill people, but he'd go to jail

for the rest of his life rather than be executed. >> mike: i can only imagine the outrage in this country if this guy were to get anything less than a death sentence for what he did. does it matter in the hours following this vicious attack he went to work out at the fitness center, he went -- slept in his dorm, he tweeted and connected with social media. does that not kind of indicate this guy is really cold-blooded? >> you know, it cuts both ways, governor. sometimes the absence of remorse shows you didn't do anything wrong. other times the absence of remorse shows you're a cold-blooded killer who has no feeling whatsoever for the horrific crime just committed. it's going to depend on how that absence of remorse is portrayed by his defense lawyers, then resisted by the government's lawyers. here's an interesting law for you. he does not have to prove

diminished capacity. the government has to prove that he had full capacity, that he was not diminished. the burden is always on the government in this type of case. >> mike: do you think this trial will be one that we'll see televised whenever it comes about? >> no. in fact, it won't be televised because it will be in a federal court. as i said earlier, probably not in boston. federal courts are not -- cameras, even still cameras, much less television cameras, are not permitted in federal courts. we'll have a good idea of what's happening, but we won't be able to watch it in real time. >> mike: if you were sitting on the bench, this case were before you, what would be the concerns that you would have to make sure that the trial was fair and yet at the same time that it didn't turn into a side show, a circus, a ranting and raving, some terrorist nonsense? >> the judge's job is the gatekeeper. the judge doesn't decide what the evidence is -- doesn't decide what the evidence means,

but he or she decides what evidence the jury would hear. i'd have a couple of concerns. did the government follow proper procedures? did the fbi follow the constitution and federal law in the manner in which it gathered evidence against him? my other concern would be, this is just going to be a trial on whether or not he did these acts and intended to do them, and intended fully and knowingly to do them. this is not going to be a trial on american foreign policy or on religion, or on muslim versus judeo-christian, because that's not a defense and therefore there's no place for that in the courtroom. >> mike: judge, you've just given us some of the reasons that we're so very glad we asked you for be here tonight. thank you for joining us on this special live broadcast. great to talk with you always. >> pleasure, governor. thanks. >> mike: judge andrew napolitano, senior judicial analyst for fox news. well, why did one of the bombing suspects spend six months in russia last year?

we're going to find out when we come back.

>> mike: we now know that tamerlan tsarnaev, the bombing suspect who died friday in a shootout with police, spent the first six months of 2012 in russia. what was he doing there? well, here to discuss former cia officer claire lopez and former israeli defense force officer mark kahlberg. claire, this chechnya connection is troubling, may be the key to understanding. what is so important that we need to know about the brother,s trip to russia? >> well, governor, chechnya is a

jihad intjihad now to inteto ya. their online web posting, especially the "usa today" channel set up by tamerlan, the older brother. that's where we see links to the caucuses emirates, for example, and this is a jihad terrorist organization. it's led by a chechen fighter. and it is dedicated to establishing an islamic state across the region, and enforcing islamic law there, shoul.

this is dangerous to others, because the caucasus emirate has -- >> mike: mark, you're in tel aviv, but you've been a part of being a first responder at 50 or more terrorist attacks in israel. what do you look for when you are anticipating or going into the situation following a terrorist attack? >> governor, there's nothing you can really look for. as every profile is different, but you can recognize the human

suspect. you can see the clothing. you can feel that the mark is in the wrong place at the wrong time. what are they doing, how are they looking, are they part of the crowd? there are so many different characteristics of what we would call profiling or trend analysis. the layers of clothing. the way they wear their caps or jackets. what types of bags they're carrying. if you get closer up, the identification of suspects like this can be, you know, little things like the main jugular vein, extensive sweating in a cold environment. they're focused on what they're doing. they don't fit in with the crowd. so this is a way of actually, without the technology, but with the civilians or police or law enforcement officers actually looking for suspects in a crowd, these are some ways that you can

actually find and detect a suspect like this. >> mike: you've been the pictures of the boston suspects. would they have given you cause for concern just by their appearances, the way they were behaving? >> no doubt, no doubt. immediately after the events, obviously, i was watching the video stream coming through. you can see that the crowd watching the finish of the boston marathon are watching the runners whereas these two were not watching the marathon at all. you know, they were very focused on where they were going. one was walking after the other, in a hurry, it seemed. their dress, their stride, the walk. there's a specific walk that a suspect of this nature has. a characteristic that a normal person, under normal

circumstances, wouldn't have. so with the right training, even civilians can be learned -- or taught how to be aware in a situation like this, what to look for, without being paranoid. i think it's important, the actual training. in the united states, this is the first event since 9/11. it's a very different event. a big problem is that i think in identifying a suspect like this, there needs to be forms of perimeter. if there was a baseball game going on or a football game going on, i'm sure the law enforcement officers would have closed off the perimeter, perhaps searched some bags, looked for suspicious things. because this was outdoors, it was just so much easier. obviously i know that the -- the laws in the united states, the fourth amendment rights are very different to what we have here in israel, but it's very important that we cannot be

complacent. >> mike: claire and marc, stay with us. coming up next, why haven't we heard anything about how the tsarnaevs reported themselves. we'll talk about that. plus, how do we keep our own country safe? how will u.s. security change at major events that happen all the time? stay with us. [ male announcer ] at his current pace, bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire.

but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

>> mike: we are back with former cia officer claire lopez and former israeli defense force officer marc kahlberg. claire, this guy, the older brother, tamerlan, drove a mercedes, he dressed well. looks like he was into money, but he was unemployed. should we be following the money trail and what could that tell us? >> yes, absolutely, governor. the financial trail is going to be very important in this case, especially as tamerlan, of course, is now dead and his younger brother unable to talk for the moment.

the financial trail can started to be followed right away. as you say, the older brother in particular dressed in nice sports clothes, had expensive shoes, drove a mercedes. in particular we know that last year, 2012, between january and june, he traveled over to the cacausus region. during those six months, who was supporting his wife and small child at home? who was supporting him? there's no record of him holding a job when he came back. his younger brother didn't have a public record of holding a job, although we know he was a student. just like after 9/11 took us to the wealthy donors in the persian gulf area, saudi arabian and other gulf donors, and foundations like benevolent

international, and others, were identified and shut down by the treasury department. so, too, this time that trail can lead to the donors and funders, and perhaps shed light on the institution in islam, the obligatory annual tax on businesses. even though an amount goes to charitable causes, a portion by shoulsharia law is to go to jih. >> mike: marc, if you were giving us recommendations in the u.s., how to make our streets, cities safer, give us specific things that we're probably going to need to do.

>> governor, picking up body parts, dealing with the scenes we saw in boston -- i was in boston just over a year ago, in the very same place, in fact, having a lunch. and these are the scenes that no one wants to deal with. this is the trauma. this is the -- the trauma that's going to stick with people forever. we need to understand a couple of things before we go into how to protect and be proactive. we need to understand that this is a scene that's going to cause many, many people for a long time a lot of trauma. the investigation, as claire correctly said, will lead to many trials, be a lot of speculation, until there's answers. the investigation is still going on. the boston police did an amazing job. the most important thing here is being proactive. there needs to be some form of

proactive -- if i can use the word, security zone, if i can use the word secure level, creating barriers, virtual barriers of defense, because once these people are within the crowds, it's too late. the techniques and the methods, i think we should be, you know, perhaps talk about training within law enforcement. let the law enforcement people come out to the civilian population and start making them aware, because people are complacent. people think it cannot and won't happen to them, but it's going to happen. we've predicted this for many years. you need to put in serious security barriers in the inner circle. >> mike: marc, thank you very much. claire, one final question for you. people are already second-guessing our intelligence agencies, investigative agencies, like the cia, the fbi. is that demoralizing to people inside the agencies when people start saying, gee, if they had done their jobs better, this wouldn't have happened? >> you know, the patriots who

work inside of our national security organizations, the fbi, the cia, and the others, they're professionals. and they're going to go about their job. we need to let them follow the trail where the trail leads. this was obviously a complex plot. these two brothers, the tsarnaev brothers, did not do this by themselves. they will follow the trail. they will be professional and methodical in their investigation. we need to let them do that. whatever time it takes. we need to -- we need to allow that to happen. we do need to find out what happened in this case, the attack in boston. >> mike: i appreciate that response, claire, because i think sometimes it's so easy for us to want to point a finger. the fact is, i deeply appreciate the highly trained -- the incredible professional personnel at both cia and the fbi, atf, all of these

organizations. i think they genuinely, more than anyone can ever understand, they never want to see these moments happen. i wish they, you know, were perfect. i wish they never had an issue that fell apart on them, but i also believe that these are people who are giving it their best shot. i think what we don't hear is how many different events were thwarted and stopped in advance. then, of course, all of us are part of that process. if we see something, say something. marc, claire, thank you to both of you for being here. well, could an unemployed ied provide clues into the background and training of the suspects? we'll talk about the bombs and what they may lead to when

>> the scene was littered with unexploded improvised explosive devices that actually we had to point oo the arriving officers and clear the area. they were strewn about the area. there were also one found in the motor vehicle that was abandoned, mercedes suv. so this was as dangerous as it gets in urban policing. >> mike: that's the boston police commissioner speaking this morning. so what clues can the unexploded ieds tell us about the suspects and whether or not they had help? joining me is rick hawn,

formerly with the fbi explosives unit. they know seven or more pipe bombs and other explosives scattered on the street. what can we learn from the unexploded pipe bombs and explosive devices left behind by these guys? >> all kinds of things, mike. first of all, the component parts, where they were purchased can be run down. the pipes -- the pipe bombs themselves, the interior, may have hairs or fibers that are identifiable with either these suspects or other suspects. there's a great deal of information that can be derived just from the devices. >> mike: there's been some talk that these devices were rather sophisticated, not the kind of thing you would just get off the internet. is that your assessment of the devices, or are these pretty simple devices, as you understand it so far? >> as i understand it so far, governor, i think these are probably pretty simple devices.

effective but simple. one of the questions, of course, that they're going to be looking at is where did they get the information to build these, assuming they actually built themselves. >> mike: do these look like the kind of things that people would just make in their garage? you know, we've heard that the pressure cooker ied is rather common in pakistan, afghanistan. does this look like something that maybe required a little more help than these guys would have had on their own? >> that's an excellent question. part and parcel of the answer to that is what the explosive was. based strictly on the smoke that we saw at the boston marathon, it leads me to believe that this was probably a homemade explosive, and whether or not these individuals had the expertise to make a homemade explosive or not is an open question at this point in time. >> mike: explain why you think it's homemade. is it the color of the smoke,

the way it dissipated? >> actually the volume of the smoke tells me it's not a commercial explosive. commercial explosives are highly engineered materials and would not generate that much smoke. the color of the smoke is indicative probably of something like ammonium nitrate-based explosive. >> mike: and what do you think would be the method of detonation? i know i'm asking you to surmise, but is that i remote device most likely, a timer, and what are the advantages or disadvantages that are used in each of these? >> well, in my opinion, these are probably remote-controlled devices. i say that because of the proximity in time that they went off. i don't think it's very likely that they'd have gotten that kind of synchronized almost firing of devices in any other way, using a timer that is.

the specifics of what type of electronic device they used to remotely control it could be something as simple as a hobbyist's airplane servo, car servo, that kind of thing. >> mike: rick, thank you. >> my pleasure. >> mike: up next, we'll ask how you can help your own children and those around you with those images that they've seen. how do you answer their questions? i know they've got a lot of them. we'll be right back. if you're suffering from constipation, miralax or metamucil may take days to work. or faster relief, try dulcolax laxative tablets. dulcolax provides gentle relief overnight unlike miralax

and metamucil that can take up to 3 days. for predictable relief try dulcolax.

>> mike: 8-year-old bombing victim martin richard has been shown all over the news this week, and he's a reminder of the innocence that was lost on

monday. your children not only saw those horrible images this week, but they know that people their age were hurt and killed. now how do you help them through this? child psychiatrist stephanie marci is with me now. doctor, kids in america have seen awful things this week. how do you start talking to them to help them from being traumatized from it at all? >> thank you for having me today, governor. i think the most important thing to keep in mind is that what children, anybody really wants to know, is am i safe? and parents need to do the best they can to convey to their children that they are safe, they're doing the best to protect them, even when they see horrible images happening to children their age. one of the first things to keep in mind, parents need to provide developmentally appropriate information to their children. we don't want to necessarily change this type of event with a 4, 5, 6-year-old, especially if

there's a strong likelihood they won't hear about it in school or other places. for older children, there's an ability to integrate what they're seeing and hearing into a more real lake rainfall of what their risk is, better equipped to deal with the information they're seeing and hearing. certainly adolescents are more likely to hear about this at school, may be talking about it in their classrooms. it's important for parents to let their children know it's took answer questions, that they will answer them as best as they can, that they're open to discussing any feelings or questions they may have. the other thing that's quite important, i caution parents to be careful about what type of news they have streaming in the background. i advise a lot of families to turn the news off, because i think we have the news streaming in the background not really recognizing that our children are watching what we don't realize they're seeing, and it can cause a lot of anxiety without even having an ability

to cope with it. and finally, children are looking to us as adults for their cues as to how to react to this type of situation. we need to do our very best to stay as calm as possible so that we can kind of filter the information and let our children know that we are in control. if they start to see we're panicking, we're out of control, they're going to feel there's a reason to panic and their fears will be much more significant in the face of their parental anxiety. >> mike: you know, just because of the coverage of this case, i can't imagine that any child could just be immune from it and escape it, because it's been ubiquitous on every news channel, even things kids are saying at school. what are some signs? tell us some signs. i'm a parent, looking at my kid, and i want to know, is he having a hard time putting this altogether, what are the signs i need to look for?

>> people in the face of an immediate trauma you express a stress reaction initially. there's a period of time where you would consider your child to be more anxious and worried. as the intensity and duration of that reaction goes on, things that you -- we counsel families to look for in particular are developmental regression, behavioral regression. maybe your child starts wetting the bed again, sucking their thumb. hyperactivity, a marked departure from their normal behavior. avoidances, nightmares, separation anxiety, refusal to go to school. things like that that you are recognizing, that your child is not acting the way you're used to seeing them act. if this persists for a couple weeks, up to a month, you might want to talk to a pediatrician or mental health professional about trying to get your child counseling to minimize the long-term impact this type of experience would have on them.

>> mike: dr. marcy, there was another incident this week, a horrible tragedy in the little community of west, texas, and the explosion that killed 14 people. one of the i guess remarkable pieces of video was of a father and his child, an inadvertent experience they had that traumatized the child. we'll play it and i want your reaction. how do you handle it and don't intend to put your child through something serious? here's the clip. >> dad, i can't hear, i can't hear! >> cover your ears. >> get out of here. please get out of here. >> oh, my god. >> please get out of here, please get out of here. >> dr. marcy, every time i hear that, my heart aches for that child. i want to hug her and say it's going to be okay. how do you deal with that as a

parent, when the child walks into the room, you didn't realize they're watching the television, or they're up close and personal to something that's absolutely awful? >> this actually happened to my nephew. he walked in and saw the beginning of the boston bombings footage on television and my sister-in-law turned it off right away. answered a couple concrete questions. did not share too much information, which is one of the big mistakes that parents make, then let him know he could ask more questions if he had them. in the clip that you just showed, sounds like the father is trying to remain somewhat calm. his daughter is asking him to drive away. i think the first thing is to try to remove your child from the traumatizing event as best as you can, reinstate their sense of safety and security. do a physical inventory, in this case, to make sure she's okay, then give her time to process, talk about the event, provide reassurance, and then in the

days, hours, after that, to try to maintain as much consistent routine and normalcy as home as you possibly can to try to let things get back to normal. >> mike: dr. marcy, we've run out of time. that's very helpful. i can't tell you how much i appreciate you being here. i think it's very helpful to every parent in america to hear it. thank you, dr. stephanie marcy. i'll be back with closing

( bell rings ) they remind me so much of my grandkids. wish i saw mine more often, but they live so far away. i've been thinking about moving in with my daughter and her family. it's been pretty tough since jack passed away. it's a good thing you had life insurance through the colonial penn program. you're right. it was affordable, and we were guaranteed acceptance. guaranteed acceptance? it means you can't be turned down because of your health. you don't have to take a physical or answer any health questions. they don't care about your aches and pains.

well, how do you know? did you speak to alex trebek? because i have a policy myself. it costs just $9.95 a month per unit. it's perfect for my budget. my rate will never go up. and my coverage will never go down because of my age. affordable coverage and guaranteed acceptance? we should give them a call. do you want to help protect your loved ones from the burden of final expenses? if you're between 50 and 85, you can get quality insurance that does not require any health questions or a medical exam. your rate of $9.95 a month per unit will never increase, and your coverage will never decrease -- that's guaranteed. so join the six million people who have already called about this insurance. whether you're getting new insurance or supplementing what you already have, call now and ask one of their representatives about a plan that meets your needs. so, what are you waiting for? go call now!

we'll finish up here. we saw people who ran into the danger, many of them sacrificing their lives to try to save and preserve the lives of others.